House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) sent a letter to Hope Hicks, former senior Trump Campaign official and former White House Communications Director, demanding that she come before the House Judiciary Committee to clarify her testimony, after a federal judge in New York unsealed evidence which revealed apparent inconsistencies with Hicks’ testimony.
Original Title
U.S. House Judiciary Letter From Chairman Nadler to Hope Hicks 7-18-2019
House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) sent a letter to Hope Hicks, former senior Trump Campaign official and former White House Communications Director, demanding that she come before the House Judiciary Committee to clarify her testimony, after a federal judge in New York unsealed evidence which revealed apparent inconsistencies with Hicks’ testimony.
House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) sent a letter to Hope Hicks, former senior Trump Campaign official and former White House Communications Director, demanding that she come before the House Judiciary Committee to clarify her testimony, after a federal judge in New York unsealed evidence which revealed apparent inconsistencies with Hicks’ testimony.
GS. House of Representatives
Committee on the Fudiciacy
‘Washington, DE 20515-6216
One Hundred Sixteenth Congress
Ms. Hope Hicks
c/o Robert P. Trout
Trout Cacheris & Solomon PLLC
1627 Bye Street NW, Suite 1130
Washington, DC 20006
July 18, 2019
Dear Ms. Hicks,
We write regarding your testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on June 19,
2019, which appears to be inconsistent with evidence unsealed this morning by a federal
judge in New York.' As I reminded you at the outset of your interview, anything other than
complete candor can have very serious consequences.” Accordingly, I would expect you to
clarify this matter before the Committee in very short order—but no later than August 15,
2019.
During your testimony, you told this Committee that you had no direct knowledge
about Michael Cohen’s payments to Stormy Daniels. You also testified that you did not
discuss those payments with Mr. Cohen and/or the President, that you did not speak with
Keith Davidson, Ms. Daniels’ attorney, at any point, and that you did not discuss negative
stories about the President, including about Ms. Daniels, prior to their release with Dylan
Howard or anyone else at AMI. The evidence unsealed this morning, however, raises
substantial questions about the accuracy of each of those statements.
We direct your attention to the following exchanges from your June 19 testimony:
= As to your knowledge of payments made to Ms. Daniels, and your discussions
relating to those payments, Representative Steve Cohen asked you directly: “[Y]ou said
you'd had no knowledge—any information about hush payments to Ms. Stormy Daniels.
' Letter by United States (July 18, 2019), Exhibit 1, ECF No. 48-1 in United States v. Cohen, No. 1:18-c1-00602
(S.D.NLY. Aug 21, 2018) (hereinafter “Unsealed Letter’).
2 For example, making materially false statements in a congressional investigation isa crime, See 18 U.S. Code §
1001 (2019).How about to Ms.—was it—McDougal, Miss August?” You responded: “I wasn’t aware
of anything—I wasn’t aware of a hush payment agreement.”?
+ Counsel for the Committee asked if you had “any knowledge of whether the President
knew that Mr. Cohen had made payments to Stormy Daniels during the campaign?” You
responded: “I don’t have any direct knowledge.”*
+ You were asked multiple times about your conversations with Mr. Cohen and the
President about Ms. Daniels and any payments made to her. For example,
Representative Sheila Jackson Lee asked you: “Were you ever present when Trump
and Cohen discussed Stormy Daniels?” You responded: “No, ma’am.”
Jackson Lee asked again, “You were never present when they discussed Stormy
Daniels?” You again responded, “no.” When Rep. Jackson Lee asked a third time if
you were “ever present when Trump and Mr. Cohen discussed Stormy Daniels,” you
confirmed once again: “[NJo is my answer.”$ Rep. Jackson Lee then asked “[y]ou
don’t know what would have been said?” You stated, “I was never present for a
conversation.”
* You also told counsel for the Committee, regarding when you leamed about
payments to Ms. Daniels: “I don’t recall speaking to [Mr. Cohen] about Stormy other
than to relay what the reporter said to me, that she would be mentioned in [a] story,
but there was no additional context. ... I know the President had conversations with
Michael separate from me, so it’s possible it was part of those. I don’t recall being
part of those conversations.””
* You were asked directly by counsel for the Committee “[d]id you have any contact
with Keith Davidson during the campaign,” and you responded, “[n]ot that I’m aware
es
= You were additionally asked directly by counsel for the Committee: “And can we ask
the same question about Dylan Howard or anyone else at AMI? Did you speak with
> Transcribed Interview before H. Comm. on the Judiciary, June 19, 2019 at 151 (hereinafter “Hicks Hearing
“Transcript”
4 Hicks Hearing Transcript at 179.
Sid
“1d
7 Id. at 266-61
rd at 184,anyone at AMI about a negative story about Trump prior to its release?” and you
responded, “Not that I’m aware of,”°
Each of these statements appears to be inconsistent with the evidence unsealed this
morning:
Pld
According to the affidavit of one federal agent, you appear to have had direct knowledge
of potential payments to Ms. Daniels. That agent testified as follows: “From my review
of telephone toll records and information produced pursuant to the iCloud Warrant and
Cohen Email Warrants, I have learned that in the days following the Access Hollywood
video, Cohen exchanged a series of calls, text messages, and emails with Keith Davidson,
who was then Clifford's attomey, David Pecker and Dylan Howard of American Media,
Inc. (“AMI”), the publisher of the National Enquirer, Trump, and Hope Hicks."
You also appear to have communicated directly with Mr. Cohen and President Trump
about these payments long before they were made. According to toll records, on October
8, 2016, “at approximately 7:20 p.m., Cohen received a call from Hicks. Sixteen
seconds into the call, Trump joined the eall, and the call continued for over four
minutes. ... Approximately ten minutes after the call ended, Hicks and Cohen spoke
again for two minutes.”"" After Mr. Cohen ended his second call with you, he exchanged
a series of calls and text messages with Mr. Pecker, Mr. Howard and the President. The
evidence shows how Mr. Cohen, in these communications, then went on to facilitate the
payments to Ms. Daniels. In addition, on October 28, 2016, the day that Mr. Cohen
“finalized the transaction with Davidson,” he spoke to the President for five minutes, then
“attempted a series of phone calls to Davidson, Pecker, and Howard throughout the day,”
and, upon confirming the payment with Mr, Howard and Mr. Davidson, he then spoke
directly to you.'?
In your testimony, you suggested that any knowledge you may have had about the
President's arrangement with Ms. Daniels during the campaign was limited to
information relayed to you from the press. The record now seems to suggest that you
obtained additional information directly from Mr. Cohen prior to any public reporting on
the matter: Based on a review of toll records, “information obtained pursuant to the
Cohen Email Warrants and iCloud Warrant, and public sources, it appears that Cohen
Unsealed Letter, P34 (emphasis added),
1 1d, 34(b) (emphasis added),
1d. P3900).